Re: [RRG] Re: Supposed impossibility of scaling for mobility

[Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>]

Excerpts from Tony Li on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 09:26:06AM -0400:
> No matter what you and I say, some folks will try to use the routing
> architecture to provide mobility (e.g. Connexion
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connexion_by_Boeing).  As a result, we have no
> choice but to deal with mobility, if only to bound the amount of damage that
> is inflicted as a result.

Yes but it's a cart and horse question.  The routing and addressing
architecture is fundamental.  It should take mobility into
consideration, but that doesn't mean that a solution to mobility
problems should be incorporated *into* the routing architecture, just
that it should *support* mobility.  People will actually use all sorts
of unexpected clever hacks to support mobility based on whatever
routing architecture we provide.  Our job is to make that easier, but
we should not constrain what they can do.

> If you don't want to deal with it under the label of mobility, then
> we can change it to "the maximum amount of churn that any single
> player can inject".

or *should* inject.  There is a tradeoff here.  Supporting churn by
individual nodes is one dimension along which to evaluate an
architecture.  The routing architecture, as a whole, may be
significantly more robust by cutting off the churn it allows at some
threshold.  (But you know that)

> I submit that the range of the mobility is a total red herring.  As
> always, we care about topological changes, not geographical ones.
> From a topological perspective, you can cause a 'mobility' event
> simply by disabling one interface on your laptop and enabling
> another.  For a zero physical distance move, you could,
> conceptually, change your topological association completely.

Yes.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg